search_google_jobs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it warns that Google's free-text matching is loose (with a concrete 38-vs-2 example), that postings are re-checked, and that two counts are reported separately. That is meaningful disclosure about result semantics and accuracy that no structured field provides; only auth, rate limits, and pagination behavior are left unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler; purpose comes first and the matching caveat second. The em-dash example is dense but earns its space by quantifying the looseness problem in a way the agent can reason about.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Seven parameters, no annotations, no output schema — the description compensates by explaining the matching model and that two result counts are returned, which is the key return-shape fact an agent needs. It does not cover empty-result behavior or the relevance/date sort semantics, small gaps for a low-risk search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale the schema cannot: the loose-matching explanation justifies the default-on strict_title/strict_location checks and tells the agent why reported counts differ. It also reinforces the precise-location requirement the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Google's own careers board') plus the two scoping dimensions (job title, location), which cleanly separates it from the many other company-specific job search siblings. An agent can immediately tell this is the Google-board variant rather than another board.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The scope ('Google's own careers board') implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative among the ~15 sibling job search tools. The agent must infer routing from the tool name and the board scope rather than being told.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.